You hit on one of the contradictions of democracy in America (I'm not sure how it is in other so called democracies). When we lock up people we give them more protection, rights and services than we can get. Remember, it's called "The Criminal Justice System" here.

The felons where I work get 24 hour medical and psychiatric care, including many drugs and procedures my insurance doesn't pay for.

Shouldn't transplants first go to those who most DESERVE a second chance?

Problem is who is going to play God to decide who lives and who dies?  See my comments below first before answering. 

Let's nail down some simple rules for organ transplants. We'll call these "common sense rules" for an industry that has lost common sense:

• Rule #1) Murderers should not qualify for organ transplants. No brainer.

Being that they are likely to get killed in prison by another prisoner or execution this would make sense.

• Rule #2) People who consciously destroy their own organs (such as by drinking rat poison) should not qualify for organ transplants.

I always though attempted suicide was an automatic disqualification already.

• Rule #3) People who choose to live unhealthy lifestyles by consuming processed junk foods, abusing drugs or avoiding basic self-care (exercise) should not quality for organ transplants either. Why? Because it's a waste to give a valuable organ to someone who isn't going to take care of it.

So what about people who take dangerous pharmaceutical drugs that did not know the drugs could cause organ failure?  For example statins, NSAIDs,  anticonvulsants, etc.  Even more of a dilemma is what about people who take pharmaceutical drugs known to cause suicidal depression like antidepressant drugs and accutane.  If someone takes these without being told the risks and they attempt suicide should they be disqualified?  And should a person be disqualified if they test positive for latent viruses that can cause cancer or organ damage such as Epstein Barre Virus or hepatitis viruses to name a few? Keep in mind that an organ recipient will need to be on anti-rejection drugs to prevent the rejection of the foreign tissue.  These anti-rejection drugs can cause cancers among other things due to the immune suppression they cause allowing latent pathogens in the body to take hold.  What about liver transplants for people with autoimmune hepatitis?  After all this is not of their own doing, but most autoimmune conditions have been linked to pathogens and mainstream medicine has no cure for autoimmune disorders.  Since they will still have autoimmunity after the transplant should they get a liver transplant since there is a high likelihood that this liver will also be destroyed?  What about the person who damages their organ from an auto accident?  What if they have a history of speeding and reckless driving meaning the accident may have been of their own doing.  What if the person developed liver failure from a hepatitis virus they contracted during "unprotected" sex?  What if that unprotected sex was rape?  What about people needing lung transplants because they ruined their lungs being exposed to coal dust, silica or asbestos in their job they were doing to feed their families?  After all they brought it upon themselves putting themselves in a high risk position.  Same applies to a fireman who develops organ failure from shock due to severe burns.  Should they be denied the transplant because they put themselves in harms way and knew the risks?  Or should they be put ahead of people waiting for years for that same organ because the firefighter is a hero who was burnt while trying to save a child's life? 

And at what age is the person going to be denied an organ?  People can die from a heart attack or stoke even at a young age.  So what is the criteria for being too old to receive an organ? 30? 60? 80? 90?

• Rule #4) Those individuals who lost their own organs through no fault of their ownshould move up to the top of the organ transplant waiting lists.

See above comments.

• Rule #5) People should be required to sign a contract before receiving an organ transplant, and that contract should commit them to avoiding alcohol and drugs (including dangerous OTC painkillers which cause liver damage, for example) and pursuing a healthful diet that will support their lifelong health.

What about a person who develops organ failure from a parasitical infection they got from their pet? Should they have to sign a contract to get rid of their pet and to never have another pet?

Do they also have to sign a contract stating they will not use immune suppressive drugs needed to prevent organ rejection since they can lead to infections that lead to failure of that organ and others? And what are their options going to be if they are in chronic pain from let's say arthritis induced by the immune suppressing Prednisone they are given?

And what if that person got a heart transplant? If they breach the contract are they going to repossess the heart allowing that person to die so they can give the heart to someone else?

The whole point of my response is to show that this is a lot more complicated issue than it sounds.  If someone is going to determine who is to live and who is to die there is a lot that needs to be factored in before those decisions are made!